Le Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 11:23:55AM +0200, Guillem Jover a écrit : > > On Sat, 2013-08-31 at 18:17:29 +0900, Charles Plessy wrote: > > In any case, we need one more Developer to support this patch before > > applying to > > the Policy. Once we have this extra assessment for consensus, I will apply > > it > > unless there are clear objections. Guillem, please raise your hand if you > > oppose the patch: at the moment I take your comment more as an advise > > (which I > > welcome despite I respectfully disagree with), and not as a blocking > > objection. > > I still don't see a direct need, but I don't mind either. My main > concern is though, that I don't want to have to add support for > application-specific (or even if feasible Debian specific) fields to > dpkg (Dm-Upload-Allowed comes to mind), just because they appear in > policy. That was somehow clear from Ian's mail, but not from the > field description.
Hi Guillem, please rest assured that modifications to the Policy must not cause large amounts of work to the developers. The Policy follows current practice and does not change it. I also would like the Policy to be a useful reference for all developers, who may wonder about the function of a given field in a given control file, which is why I have been pushing for a more extensive coverage. Have a nice day, -- Charles -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-policy-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20130911233002.ga23...@falafel.plessy.net
